Plaintiff
Jervis K. Thomas moves the Court for leave to join additional
parties as defendants and to file his Second Amended
Complaint.[1] This matter is referred to the undersigned
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) by Judge
Campbell.[2] After considering the parties'
memoranda, relevant case law and the history of this case the
Court will DENY the Motion to Amend.

BACKGROUND

This
suit is an action brought Under Title II of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964[3] and the Utah Civil Rights
Act.[4]
The circumstances arise from events at a gas station located
in Salt Lake City, Utah on July 5, 2016. “Plaintiff, an
Afro-American”[5] alleges he was discriminated against on
the basis of race when he was called derogatory names and
attacked by an employee “with a hammer and
dog”[6] who chased him around the gas pumps and
into the station.

The
deadline to file a motion to amend in this case is August 30,
2017 for Plaintiff and September 15, 2017 for
Defendants.[7] Plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint on August 31, 2017, [8] following an order by the Court
permitting Plaintiff to amend.[9] The Scheduling Order set forth
the same deadlines for the parties to move to join additional
parties, namely, August 30, 2017, for Plaintiff and September
15, 2017, for Defendants.[10]

On
December 6, 2017, Judge Campbell held a hearing in this
case.[11] At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Campbell granted Defendant Shell Oil Company's Motion to
Dismiss and gave Plaintiff “three weeks in which to
amend its complaint” and Defendants an opportunity to
respond.[12] The current dispute centers on the scope
of Judge Campbell's ruling. Plaintiff asserts there were
no restrictions upon its ability to amend while Defendants
argue that ruling does not permit the amendments Plaintiff
seeks.

DISCUSSION

Federal
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.”[13] “The
district court has ‘wide discretion to recognize a
motion for leave to amend in the interest of a just, fair or
early resolution of litigation.'”[14]
“Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified
upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of
amendment.”[15]

Here,
Plaintiff seeks via its Amended Complaint to add the
following: Equilon Enterprises, LLC as a Defendant in place
of Shell Oil; two other new Defendants, Howard Bode and Andi
Pirnat; and new claims against Defendant ARS. Plaintiff
argues the proposed amendment is within the scope of Judge
Campbell's ruling. Defendant ARS takes issue with
Plaintiff's interpretation of the Court's ruling. ARS
agrees to the substitution of Equilon for Shell Oil but
opposes the two other new defendants, Bode and Pirnat, and
the additional claims made against it. In support ARS points
to the Scheduling Order deadline of August 30, 2017, for
Plaintiff to add parties. That deadline was not extended by
Judge Campbell and the hearing before her only concerned
Shell Oil's motion to dismiss. In addition ARS has
completed discovery and filed dispositive motions. So,
according to ARS, Re-opening discovery at this point would be
prejudicial, create further delay and undermine the effort
extended in filing the dispositive motions.

The
Court agrees with ARS. A motion to amend may be denied upon a
showing of undue delay or undue prejudice. The deadline to
add parties has passed and Judge Campbell did not change that
deadline at the hearing. Further, Plaintiff has failed to
offer any reasonable explanation for the delay. ARS has
already filed dispositive motions that will be undermined by
Plaintiff's amendments. Thus, the Court finds allowing
additional claims at this stage of the case will be
prejudicial and waste resources extended by ARS in defending
this case.

In
addition, the hearing before Judge Campbell centered on Shell
Oil's Motion to Dismiss that was granted. After Shell Oil
was dismissed Judge Campbell made the reasonable decision to
allow Plaintiff an opportunity to replace Shell Oil with the
correct defendant Equilon. There was nothing mentioned about
allowing addition claims against ARS or additional parties.

ORDER

For the
reasons set forth above Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is
DENIED. In accordance with Judge Campbell's prior ruling
Plaintiff has (7) seven days from the date of this order to
file an appropriate motion to amend, upon which Defendants
may file ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.